, 1887-04-05

VI u Cudlu VI niSStatcIlcutb Vi ldct. Inc
records of the Office speak for themselves
and demonstrate the falsehood of every
matter in issue to which they properly re-
late.
The statement that Sturth made proof
on February 81, 1886, is untrue. His
proof was made on February II.
The statement that his testimony re.
vealed that he had not resided perma-
nently upon the land, but mainly at his
hotel near the land, is not true. On the
contrary, his proof was accepted because
he and his witnesses swore that he had
resided continuously on the land as re
quired by law. MIR. Sturth himself will
his sworn statement.
Subsequently to the date OF Sturth's
proof upon which he made payment for
which final receipt issued, al inspection
of the publishers affidavit revealed the
fact that proof had not been made upon
the day named in the notice, but about
two weeks before that day, whereupon he
gave notice to prove up or April so, on
which day he appeared with witnesses,
and made enIirely new proof.
In the meantime, viz: on April II,
1856. an application had been made to the
general land Office to contest Sturth's en-
try. BY Jas. p. Robinson supported by his
affidavit corroborated by those of William
j. and George R. Garland. of Pine
Bluffs. 1t was alleged in these afidavits
that the entry of Sturth was made with
out compliance with the Law in the matter
Of residence; that he with his family,
during all the time he claimed residence
on the land in question, was actually re-
siding OF another tract. carrying on
the business of a saloon and hotel keeper.
Upon this showing the commissioner by
his letter Co ofJuly ., 1886, directed
this Office to order a hearing to determine
the facts in the case. Thereupon notice is
sued on July IA, 1886, summoning the
parties to appear on August %, ito re-
spond and furnish testimony concerning
the truth Of said allegations. This no.
tice was returned with proof of personal
service on Sturth.
On August 10 the contestant offered a
motion for continuance on the ground of
necessary absence, which motion was filed
with the papers to await consideration on
the day of hearing. On that day, Aug.
%, Sturth appeared in person and by
counsel, the contestant failing to appear,
and the motion for continuance then for
the first time coming up to be considered,
the contestee-in order to avoid a contin-
uance-made the admission provided for
by the rules of practice. that, if present,
the contestant would testify to the matters
and things in his affidavst set forth" The
motion for continuance was accordingly
overruled and the contest was then and
there dismissed. From this ruling the
contestant appealed to the general land of
flee, which took the case beyond further
action ofthe local officers. The statement
that the land officers had agreed to grant
a continuance is as untrue as that Mr..
Sturth insisted upon going on with the
case The papers show hat the case
was dismissed upon his own motion, made
by his attorneys, and instead ofbeing held
under advisement thirty DAYS the motion
was granted at once.
Prior to Sturth's second proof he wrote
to a prominent citizen of Cheyenne, ad-
hitting that he had not lived on the land.
The gentleman to whom this letter was
addressed sent it to this office, with a
brief request that it should receive what
ever attention might be proper. The let
ter was placed with the papers, where it
still remains.
Sturth's second proof, made April 30,
1886, was rejected because upon strict
questioning he failed to swear to the facts
he had sworn to on Feb. IL. The proof
was then given to Sturth's attorney with
the rejection noted in order to furnish a
basis for appeal. The attorney when re-
Quested to return the proof to this Office
has denied having it in his possession.
Fortunately the former proof, which can
be denied neither by counsel nor client, is
sufficient to establish the false and reck-
less character of the Suns information.
Smrth's money was duly forwarded to the
United States treasury. If the first proof
is not shown to be fraudulent, he will get
the right to apply for repayment, which
would, doubtless, be made upon his show
ing that he was honestly mistaken in
swearing that he had lived continuously
on the land. His application to file on
the land as a homestead would have to be
rejected, even If no contest were pending,
so long as his cash entry remains of record.
The foregoing statements of the facts con-
nected with the case are matters neither
of opinion nor of memory, but are taken
from the records of this Office.
The information upon which MIR. Robin
sons contest was based was not derived
from this office. On the contrary, the ac-
ceptance of the first proof Is evidence that
its statements were believed. ANY charge,
~insinuation or inference that there was
any collision, co operation or understand
ing between Mr.. Robinson and the officers
of this land office, is Qratuitously false.
The statement Of Mr.. Robinson as to
matters not of record, but within his own
knowledge. is appended, and Special
Agent Fry's relation of his action in the
case shows what would have happened ir-
respective of any contest.
With these remarks on a subject scarce
ly worth so much notice. the facts are sub.
mitted. Whether intelligent readers pre-
fer to base conclusions upon insinuations
and groundless inference, or upon clear
statements Of fact, is for them 10 deter
mine.
THE foregoing was presented to Mr..
Slack, the editor Of the Sun, with the
statement that it had been prepared on
the idea that he had been misinformed as
to the true facts in the case and had not
Intentionally misrepresen,ed them, After
reading it. he refused to publish it. The
only conclusion left is, that he intention
ally and maliciously published his article
with a knowledge that it was false.